PDA

View Full Version : What makes California so different?


adrenalinejunkie
01-28-2012, 6:55 PM
This question has been on my mind for a few days. I know that they're found some far fetched reason as to why CA needs specially imposing gun laws, but what are those reasons? How do they justify CA being different from any free state where there is no hicap mag ban or evil features ban?

Los Angeles? Every state has their high-crime areas.

That's the only reason I can think of. What reasons do our "all-knowing" CA legislators use to say that our state is different from any free state? How does each ban improve our way of living? Free states have not collapsed without these restrictions, why would we?

It's just been bothering me and I wanted to know if anyone actually knew what specific arguments they had for this.

Crom
01-28-2012, 7:19 PM
Go to Amazon and order: More Guns, Less crime, understanding Crime and Gun control Laws. By John Lott.

CAL.BAR
01-28-2012, 7:32 PM
Your assumption is that CA is different. It's not HI, NY, NJ D.C., IL and many others have just as many (if not more and worse) gun laws. CA is just the LARGEST, so we get the attention.

Population desity is your answer (for the most part). The greater the population density, the more stringent the gun laws. Where are the epicenters of gun laws? LA, NY, Chicago etc.

wjc
01-28-2012, 7:46 PM
We do have a lot of Democrats in office.

The current concern is the re-districting maps because they could potentially achieve a super majority in Sacramento.

sholling
01-28-2012, 7:54 PM
Three things hurt us. First first we suffered an invasion of north-eastern and rust belt liberals during the 60s and 70s that make the illegal alien invasion look like a drop in a bucket. Second the major population centers lean left even though the more sparsely populated remainder of the of the state leans center-right. Third Californians have been the victim of a very-very effective 50 year media disinformation campaign to demonize guns.

motorhead
01-28-2012, 7:54 PM
for the children, of course.:eek:

mes227
01-28-2012, 9:20 PM
Your assumption is that CA is different. It's not HI, NY, NJ D.C., IL and many others have just as many (if not more and worse) gun laws. CA is just the LARGEST, so we get the attention.

Population desity is your answer (for the most part). The greater the population density, the more stringent the gun laws. Where are the epicenters of gun laws? LA, NY, Chicago etc.

Australia is very sparsely populated and has very strict gun control.

Librarian
01-28-2012, 9:29 PM
Australia is very sparsely populated and has very strict gun control.

Australia had Port Arthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29) in 1996.

MindBuilder
01-28-2012, 9:29 PM
They don't think California needs especially tough gun laws, they think all the states and even the whole world would be better off to ban private guns completely. They know that the state won't fall apart if they allow hi-caps etc, they just think that every little restriction helps save a few lives and helps get closer to a complete ban. Also, big city dwellers are less likely to be hunters and more likely to be Democrats.

Quiet
01-28-2012, 9:41 PM
We do have a lot of Democrats in office.

The current concern is the re-districting maps because they could potentially achieve a super majority in Sacramento.

Having a lot of democrats is not the reason why CA has so many anti-gun laws.

Look at NV, the democrats hold the majority in that state and have done so for decades, but their gun laws are less resrtictive than CA's and proposed anti-gun bills almost always get defeated.

Has to do with the type of politcian, not the politican's party affiliation.

Also, if you look at CA's history, the majority of anti-gun laws that were passed, prior to the 1980s, was due to racisim.

CAL.BAR
01-28-2012, 10:10 PM
Australia is very sparsely populated and has very strict gun control.

Yes, but Australia is populated by English who never had firearms right to begin with. It's no surprise that they fear such rights as they never had any history of them.

Back to the subject (the US) population = gun control. From the days of Tombstone.

Rossi357
01-28-2012, 10:56 PM
One thing is that Calif never had any 2nd amendment language in it's constitution. The was no right to keep and bear arms.

Shoobee
01-28-2012, 11:10 PM
One thing is that Calif never had any 2nd amendment language in it's constitution. The was no right to keep and bear arms.

Well fortunately John Roberts has now solved that problem.

Now it's just a matter of enforcing the USSC's holding in California as well.

But please understand, I am talking about the "keeping" and "bearing" part.

I am not hung up on banana-clip magazines.

I am happy that my (new) CZ 97B is allowed 10 + 1 and that my Mossberg 590 is allowed 8 + 1 in California. That's plenty, for me. Now if only I could bear them as well as keep them, in San Jose, when I walk home late at night from work alone, in a part of town where the vagrants and x-cons outnumber me.

vantec08
01-29-2012, 3:37 AM
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." -- Aexander Tytler




CA is the national leader in "progressing." The nation and world are a closed circle, and at any time in history we are somewhere within that circle, which is why those who call themselves "progressives" amuse me (were it not for the tragedy and drama they inflict). The next couple of elections and SCOTUS makeup will pretty determine whether we "progress" as Tytler suggests, or buy some more time (a decade, perhaps century).

Hopalong
01-29-2012, 6:21 AM
Simple really.

Politics.

If Ca. legislators thought they would be voted out of office for being anti 2A

They would change their tune in a hot second.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true.

On the flip side, can you imagine a Texas legislator wanting to impose restrictive gun laws getting elected in Texas?

He'd be sent packing to Ca.

ja308
01-29-2012, 8:41 AM
Having a lot of democrats is not the reason why CA has so many anti-gun laws.

Look at NV, the democrats hold the majority in that state and have done so for decades, but their gun laws are less resrtictive than CA's and proposed anti-gun bills almost always get defeated.

Has to do with the type of politcian, not the politican's party affiliation.

Also, if you look at CA's history, the majority of anti-gun laws that were passed, prior to the 1980s, was due to racisim.

Not sure Nevada democrats control the state ,senate, assembly ,and governor .
Would you please clarify?

BobB35
01-29-2012, 8:54 AM
Not all democrats are created equal....those that call themselves democrats in most other states would be republicans in CA...whereas the Dems in CA might as well just create a different party and call themselves communists. That is why someone like Pelosi can rise to the top of the Party. People affiliate with the name not the actions.

Oh BTW the GOP has the same issue just in reverse...

sholling
01-29-2012, 8:56 AM
Sometimes I wonder if some of the legislation coming from Sacramento is actually intended to drive conservatives and anyone else that they see as a political threat out of the state.

NotEnufGarage
01-29-2012, 9:04 AM
Three things hurt us. First first we suffered an invasion of north-eastern and rust belt liberals during the 60s and 70s that make the illegal alien invasion look like a drop in a bucket.

Yes

Second the major population centers lean left even though the more sparsely populated remainder of the of the state leans center-right.

Yes

Third Californians have been the victim of a very-very effective 50 year media disinformation campaign to demonize guns.

Yes


The 2nd and 3rd point boil down to the fact that large population centers are more susceptible to a few things, namely, mass marketing and media manipulation, political manipulation and group think.

For 30 years, SF and LA were subjected to the 3 networks and their local affiliates for their news coverage. Since the networks themselves are heavily biased to the left, the local affiliates would follow suit, since the local anchors all have aspiration of moving up to the network and if that's going to happen, they'd need to "fit in". After that, CNN was added to the mix and while it was fairly neutral at first, in the early 90's it moved hard to the left (and became known as the Clinton News Network). Not until the 90's did Fox News and internet news sites come along to add a different viewpoint. Prior to this, about the only source of news appealing to the Right was talk radio, starting in 1987 with the overturning of the "Fairness Doctrine".

It will take time for the balance to be completely restored, but I think we're already seeing some of it as network ratings take a nose dive and print media outlets merge and/or go bankrupt for lack of readership.

ja308
01-29-2012, 9:08 AM
Sometimes I wonder if some of the legislation coming from Sacramento is actually intended to drive conservatives and anyone else that they see as a political threat out of the state.

possibly . it sure seems to have that effect.
The majority of the democratic party support international law .

I believe that is the major difference between Dc and Rs

HKMadness
01-29-2012, 9:09 AM
As mentioned, left leaning politicians believe that they're left leaning constituents (majority in ca) will vote them out unless they tighten up gun control. In their minds, that is the solution to bring down crime rates. Of course, we know that strict gun control hasn't had any real effect on the areas with high crime rates, however. Do your part to vote these clowns out.

ja308
01-29-2012, 9:19 AM
Having a lot of democrats is not the reason why CA has so many anti-gun laws.

Look at NV, the democrats hold the majority in that state and have done so for decades, but their gun laws are less resrtictive than CA's and proposed anti-gun bills almost always get defeated.

Has to do with the type of politcian, not the politican's party affiliation.

Also, if you look at CA's history, the majority of anti-gun laws that were passed, prior to the 1980s, was due to racisim.

I am curious as to which party IS proposing these "ANTI GUN" laws in Nevada to which your post refers?

BTW Nevada does have a Republican governor Brian Sandoval.

As for your your racism suggestion , is that what the democratic party said when they passed/signed this legislation ?

1919_4_ME
01-29-2012, 9:26 AM
This question has been on my mind for a few days. I know that they're found some far fetched reason as to why CA needs specially imposing gun laws, but what are those reasons? How do they justify CA being different from any free state where there is no hicap mag ban or evil features ban?

Los Angeles? Every state has their high-crime areas.

That's the only reason I can think of. What reasons do our "all-knowing" CA legislators use to say that our state is different from any free state? How does each ban improve our way of living? Free states have not collapsed without these restrictions, why would we?

It's just been bothering me and I wanted to know if anyone actually knew what specific arguments they had for this.





Our tough gun restrictions all started when we had the violent street gangs doing all the drive by shootings and robberies back in the day. Basically the gangs did us in the people got tired of all the drive-by shootings and there was pressure on the law makers to stop it. Innocent people were getting caught up in those shootings so that's why California and New York have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation now. You can blame the gangs for what we have now in California, we use to be a gun friendly state where cash and carry was the norm...

daveinwoodland
01-29-2012, 9:28 AM
Someone once told me all of problems were because of all the fruits and nuts?

ja308
01-29-2012, 9:36 AM
Our tough gun restrictions all started when we had the violent street gangs doing all the drive by shootings and robberies back in the day. Basically the gangs did us in the people got tired of all the drive-by shootings and there was pressure on the law makers to stop it. Innocent people were getting caught up in those shootings so that's why California and New York have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation now. You can blame the gangs for what we have now in California, we use to be a gun friendly state where cash and carry was the norm...

somehow I missed all that to which your post refers.
Would seem reasonable to relax gun laws ,so law abiding folks could more easily defend themselves .

626Tony
01-29-2012, 9:39 AM
people died so that i can have the privilege to vote! so we all need to vote for more gun friendly people. Get rid of that A rating that nutty Brady campaign has given us cause that means gun bans all together!

njineermike
01-29-2012, 9:45 AM
somehow I missed all that to which your post refers.
Would seem reasonable to relax gun laws ,so law abiding folks could more easily defend themselves .

"Reaonable" and politics aren't usually naturally coincidental. Assuming any person who wants to be involves in politics is there to help make a better world for you is the issue. Most want a better world as they see it, and within a very short period of time, realize adhering to the more extreme elements of each party line are what gets headlines and attention.

We need a REAL alternative party. Being a Libertarian just isn't working out for me and mine.

Mr.1904
01-29-2012, 10:43 AM
Australia had Port Arthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29) in 1996.



All of these events, from the first bullet that killed Ng, took approximately 15 seconds, during which 12 people were killed and 10 more were wounded

dammmmmmmmmmmn :shock::eek:

That's insane. Pure evil.

Was not aware of this till now

watsonville
01-29-2012, 11:19 AM
To many adrenaline junkies fame grabbing politicians I mean trust me we will be more safer calling the cops

CrysisMonkey
01-29-2012, 12:43 PM
Australia still has issues with guns. There have been numerous shootings with handguns. Joe citizen can't get one. Further proof that gun control doesn't work. Denmark doesn't allow firearms at all, and they still have shootings.

Gun control is a trick used by politicians used to get reelected. Look how tough I am on crime. Look how much I'm doing to prevent these gun crimes from happening.
Joe citizen doesn't get the full story. Nor does he want it. They want to know what happened and that someone is doing something about it. They want action even if there is no positive result.

Meplat
01-29-2012, 1:00 PM
Australia is very sparsely populated and has very strict gun control.

Like Canada they failed to reject the teat of momma england before it was too late.

Meplat
01-29-2012, 1:07 PM
Yes, but Australia is populated by English who never had firearms right to begin with. It's no surprise that they fear such rights as they never had any history of them.

Back to the subject (the US) population = gun control. From the days of Tombstone.

Actually we can trace our philosophical bases for the RKBA to English common law.

Meplat
01-29-2012, 1:11 PM
Well fortunately John Roberts has now solved that problem.

Now it's just a matter of enforcing the USSC's holding in California as well.

But please understand, I am talking about the "keeping" and "bearing" part.

I am not hung up on banana-clip magazines.

I am happy that my (new) CZ 97B is allowed 10 + 1 and that my Mossberg 590 is allowed 8 + 1 in California. That's plenty, for me. Now if only I could bear them as well as keep them, in San Jose, when I walk home late at night from work alone, in a part of town where the vagrants and x-cons outnumber me.

Banana-clip is such an anti phrase. Do I see some stripes showing?

Shoobee
01-29-2012, 1:12 PM
Banana-clip is such an anti phrase. Do I see some stripes showing?

Well they look like bananas because they are bent in the middle.

I used to have a few of them until they became illegal.

Once you are free of the addiction then you have to ask yourself why did you get them in the first place?

The alcoholic always wonders why he or she became an addict, but only after they graduate from their 12 step program. It's the same way with anything else.

Shoobee
01-29-2012, 1:15 PM
Like Canada they failed to reject the teat of momma england before it was too late.

The USA went through a fairly intense Indian and Wild West phase in the late 1800s and that's when sidearms became very popular and ingrained in our thinking here.

I guess the Auzzies and Canucks did not.

History usually contains the answer to most questions.

Meplat
01-29-2012, 1:15 PM
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." -- Aexander Tytler




CA is the national leader in "progressing." The nation and world are a closed circle, and at any time in history we are somewhere within that circle, which is why those who call themselves "progressives" amuse me (were it not for the tragedy and drama they inflict). The next couple of elections and SCOTUS makeup will pretty determine whether we "progress" as Tytler suggests, or buy some more time (a decade, perhaps century).

Such an abundance of wisdom in such a small paragraph!

DannyInSoCal
01-29-2012, 1:41 PM
Simple.

Kalifornistan is a nanny state run by bought and paid for union owned politicians -

Who cater to the "anti-everything" special interests.

Whether is the billion dollars in extra fees stolen from businesses in the form of carbon credits under the guise of "green energy" which will have ZERO impact on the environment -

Or the redistricting of voters to manipulate a 3/4 majority so Dems can raise taxes without any obstacles.

Kalifornistan is on the fast track to a well earned place as the exact opposite of a Capitalst Economy -

Instead eventually driving out all businesses and relying on Fed funds to fuel it's welfare state -

Consisting of only libtards, unions, and illegals.

Not that I really give a crap -

Me and my businesses already are planning on leaving -

Along with all the tax dollars and revenue generated -

As I'm flipping them all off as they disappear in the rear view mirrors...

scrat
01-29-2012, 1:50 PM
Go to Amazon and order: More Guns, Less crime, understanding Crime and Gun control Laws. By John Lott.

I have that book. pretty cool

Thelaststand
01-29-2012, 6:16 PM
Well they look like bananas because they are bent in the middle.

I used to have a few of them until they became illegal.

Once you are free of the addiction then you have to ask yourself why did you get them in the first place?

The alcoholic always wonders why he or she became an addict, but only after they graduate from their 12 step program. It's the same way with anything else.

Is this a joke? The so called "banana clip" is a term used by anti gun groups and also sounds very ignorant. I have many regular capacity ar15 (30 round) magazines and are perfectly fine and will not cause anyone harm.

Shoobee
01-29-2012, 7:38 PM
I have that book. pretty cool

Can you give us a synopsis?

It is balanced? Or just more cheerleading for one side or the other?

Is is well documented? Or just more false assumptions and tricky interpretations?

What is the overall conclusion?

What did you get out of it?

If worthwhile then I will buy and read it, thanks.

Shoobee
01-29-2012, 7:44 PM
Simple.

Kalifornistan is a nanny state run by bought and paid for union owned politicians -

Who cater to the "anti-everything" special interests.

Whether is the billion dollars in extra fees stolen from businesses in the form of carbon credits under the guise of "green energy" which will have ZERO impact on the environment -

Or the redistricting of voters to manipulate a 3/4 majority so Dems can raise taxes without any obstacles.

Kalifornistan is on the fast track to a well earned place as the exact opposite of a Capitalst Economy -

Instead eventually driving out all businesses and relying on Fed funds to fuel it's welfare state -

Consisting of only libtards, unions, and illegals.

Not that I really give a crap -

Me and my businesses already are planning on leaving -

Along with all the tax dollars and revenue generated -

As I'm flipping them all off as they disappear in the rear view mirrors...

What you are actually doing to your own mind is what Jim Morrison of The Doors used to call "a short cut to thinking."

Most of what I see listed above is mere hysteria.

In reality, I know that Laurie Smith and Joseph McNamara both personally believe that citizens should not carry guns. I don't think it is because they are bought and paid for. I think it is because they truly believe it, regardless of the US Constitution.

And so I am left wondering why? It could be due to any of several reasons.

If it is political, then it is because they believe this is what their voting base wants them to do, and as such they are simply typical politicians trying to get themselves re-elected, rather than doing what is lawful and right.

If it is ego related, then they themselves have merely substituted their own judgment in lieu of everyone else's. In that case, they are no better than any other dictatorship or gulag.

If it is job safety related, and they don't want their officers to risk more injuries and deaths than they already do, then they simply care more about their own team than they care about the public they are sworn to serve and protect.

I don't know why, but I am sure the true reason is probably not any of those on your list above.

Damn True
01-29-2012, 9:31 PM
Yesterday I was walking on the beach at San Gregorio with my wife and dog and it was about 72deg and I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt and my face got a bit sunburned.....on January 28th.

There are some good things about CA.

Just thought I throw that in for some perspective.

Wherryj
01-30-2012, 7:59 AM
This question has been on my mind for a few days. I know that they're found some far fetched reason as to why CA needs specially imposing gun laws, but what are those reasons? How do they justify CA being different from any free state where there is no hicap mag ban or evil features ban?

Los Angeles? Every state has their high-crime areas.

That's the only reason I can think of. What reasons do our "all-knowing" CA legislators use to say that our state is different from any free state? How does each ban improve our way of living? Free states have not collapsed without these restrictions, why would we?

It's just been bothering me and I wanted to know if anyone actually knew what specific arguments they had for this.

The best answer is probably that the vast majority of CA's population lives in urban/suburban areas. The vast majority of people in these areas are incapable of following any thought beyond the first 10 seconds-including the politicians "serving" them. When these people see a sound byte that declares that there's "too much gun crime" they immediately want to "do something", but then the impulse to head to McDonald's overtakes them.

What's important is that the politician makes use of the sound byte for political gain...

Bruce
01-30-2012, 8:45 AM
As for your your racism suggestion , is that what the democratic party said when they passed/signed this legislation ?

Our troubles are rooted in racism: http://old.californiaccw.org/files/sf-chronicle-article.htm

ja308
01-30-2012, 12:16 PM
Thank You for the link Bruce ,
The law did say Chinese tongs and vendetta prone Latino's or something .

I discounted the entire atricle by SF Cronicle . As I discount all anti rights media .
Again thank you for taking the effort to reply.

leadstorm
01-30-2012, 1:48 PM
I used to have a few of them until they became illegal.
Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not "illegal" in California (nor have they ever been). If you had them here before the importation/manufacturing ban (these are activities, not items), then there was no reason driven by legality to get rid of them.

Once you are free of the addiction then you have to ask yourself why did you get them in the first place?

The alcoholic always wonders why he or she became an addict, but only after they graduate from their 12 step program. It's the same way with anything else.
The weapon I carry more than any other is a 5-shot J-frame, and I'm fine with that...but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to use a 30-round mag in my AR-15 while sitting on a ground squirrel field, or because shooting an M1919 with only 10-rounds linked is less fun, or because I'd like to simply order a Glock 22 with its factory-supplied mags and no extra hassle, or [insert myriad other defense/sporting/fun reasons here]. To label those desires as "addictions" is pejorative on your part.

But please understand, I am talking about the "keeping" and "bearing" part.

I am not hung up on banana-clip magazines.

I am happy that my (new) CZ 97B is allowed 10 + 1 and that my Mossberg 590 is allowed 8 + 1 in California. That's plenty, for me.Picking and choosing physical features of firearms and classifying them as desirable/undesirable, good/bad, or necessary/unnecessary is a tactic used by those who seek unwarranted control.

The USA went through a fairly intense Indian and Wild West phase in the late 1800s and that's when sidearms became very popular and ingrained in our thinking here.

I guess the Auzzies and Canucks did not.

History usually contains the answer to most questions.
The Canadians, while having a different pattern of colonialization, far lower immigration rates, and far lower population density than the US, shared much of our frontier culture. They did somewhat better at getting along with the Natives.

The Australians had much violent interaction with the Aborigines, as well as their own wild frontier culture.

paratroop
01-30-2012, 4:34 PM
Well they look like bananas because they are bent in the middle.

I used to have a few of them until they became illegal.

Um, "banana clips", never became illegal. building them, selling them, importing them, giving them away, became illegal.http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/3500/Banana-Gun-Clip-3835.jpg

Rogue187
01-30-2012, 8:28 PM
Rossi357 hit it right on the head..
Within the California Constitution there is no 2nd Amendment language meaning no right to keep and bear arms.
The Politicians know that since it is not in there that they can trample it all they want as that there is no recourse because it is no in the CA Constitution. So they step all they want..

ja308
01-30-2012, 8:40 PM
Can you give us a synopsis?

It is balanced? Or just more cheerleading for one side or the other?

Is is well documented? Or just more false assumptions and tricky interpretations?

What is the overall conclusion?

What did you get out of it?

If worthwhile then I will buy and read it, thanks.

It is not balanced , it is the truth . Actuarial tables done scientifically.
He used insurance type methodogy in collecting data .
John Lott is extrememly smart --he did the book without knowing what his conclusions would be .
Some of his algoithisms were over my head.
Suggest you buy the book and explain it more coherently than I just did,

Ima2Avoter
01-30-2012, 8:50 PM
Yesterday I was walking on the beach at San Gregorio with my wife and dog and it was about 72deg and I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt and my face got a bit sunburned.....on January 28th.

There are some good things about CA.

Just thought I throw that in for some perspective.

Don't give a crude about that carp. Live free or die tryin' !!!! To be here "just because of the weather" is more than glib, not enough to justify staying.

ja308
01-30-2012, 8:57 PM
What you are actually doing to your own mind is what Jim Morrison of The Doors used to call "a short cut to thinking."

Most of what I see listed above is mere hysteria.

In reality, I know that Laurie Smith and Joseph McNamara both personally believe that citizens should not carry guns. I don't think it is because they are bought and paid for. I think it is because they truly believe it, regardless of the US Constitution.

And so I am left wondering why? It could be due to any of several reasons.

If it is political, then it is because they believe this is what their voting base wants them to do, and as such they are simply typical politicians trying to get themselves re-elected, rather than doing what is lawful and right.

If it is ego related, then they themselves have merely substituted their own judgment in lieu of everyone else's. In that case, they are no better than any other dictatorship or gulag.

If it is job safety related, and they don't want their officers to risk more injuries and deaths than they already do, then they simply care more about their own team than they care about the public they are sworn to serve and protect.

I don't know why, but I am sure the true reason is probably not any of those on your list above.

I think those are his reasons , along with about 20 others he did not mention .
like smog checks , cell phone laws, mandatory insurance for citisens (illegals not)
a nearly 20billion debt.
a legislature that writes 1500 new laws every year.
so called sanctuary cities -where the rule of law is dismissed.
a vote that is meaningless - like prop 187 and several others.
Laws on micro stamping , bullet serial numbers, lead bans , and now registration on all new long guns and shotguns Jan2014--expect retroactive registration (all guns) June 2014
Will the democrat majority miss Danny and those who feel as he does?
NOT ONE DAMN BIT - they will welcome his departure .
for every business and working man who leaves , the democratic majoity gets another constituen
I have met lots of folks who left cali-- they were all driving new trucks and luxury cars --each one asked me , Why are you still there?

TempleKnight
01-30-2012, 9:05 PM
Well they look like bananas because they are bent in the middle.

I used to have a few of them until they became illegal.

Once you are free of the addiction then you have to ask yourself why did you get them in the first place?

The alcoholic always wonders why he or she became an addict, but only after they graduate from their 12 step program. It's the same way with anything else.

What are you talking about? Do you have a problem with those of us in the competitive shooting community? We've been shooting STIs with 20+ capacity and 30 rd mags for the AR since long before you showed up in this forum. Oh, wait you just got here.

In time, I hope you come to understand the importance of supporting all of the shooting disciplines. Just because you have an aversion to standard capacity mags doesn't mean the rest of us don't have a legit reason to use them. (reminder: they are not illegal if you purchased them legally; "back in the day")

Remember, we wouldn't have the stupid roster if SASS hadn't sold us out.

voiceofreason
01-31-2012, 12:37 AM
One thing is that Calif never had any 2nd amendment language in it's constitution. The was no right to keep and bear arms.

Read in another thread that they felt it was stupid to write it is as the 2nd Amendment trumps anything they would write.

Meplat
01-31-2012, 6:35 AM
Yesterday I was walking on the beach at San Gregorio with my wife and dog and it was about 72deg and I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt and my face got a bit sunburned.....on January 28th.

There are some good things about CA.

Just thought I throw that in for some perspective.

Ya; 40 below keeps out the rif-raf.

Meplat
01-31-2012, 6:45 AM
Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not "illegal" in California (nor have they ever been).

To label those desires as "addictions" is pejorative on your part.

Picking and choosing physical features of firearms and classifying them as desirable/undesirable, good/bad, or necessary/unnecessary is a tactic used by those who seek unwarranted control..

I think we have a pattern developing here.

Manolito
01-31-2012, 7:10 AM
If you look at California as a block of dirt once owned by the Mexican government and now owned by the United States it has never cared if its occupants carried or owned guns.
When we became a State of the United States and started electing people to represent us restrictions began. The Chinese smoked Opium openly until 1875 in California. We took this right away from them competely. I can go on for hours about things that were legal and then laws were passed that banned them forever. Most of them people think are pretty good laws.
California has 37,253,956 residence as of the census in 2010. APPROXIMATELY 22.5% of those people own one or more firearm. My percent is built off of data I can find so I could be off several percentage points. This says that three out of every four people don't even own a gun and yet you can buy them and shoot them and own them in California. I find that amazing in itself. Yes there are restrictions on weapons and ammunition to some small degree and could be changed.
Five years ago if I came on this site and said you all could apply for a CCW permit in Sacramento in 2011 you would have laughed me off the blog.
California is different so is Seattle Washington and if you think San Francisco is anti gin try Seattle.
Just my thoughts
Bill

warkaj
01-31-2012, 10:37 AM
HAHAHAHHAHA

Where do I start?

warkaj
01-31-2012, 10:39 AM
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.



Now if that doesnt blow your mind about the law in California I don't know what does. Last I checked the Constitution and the Supreme Court has said the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to personal defense... BOOM!

Jack L
01-31-2012, 11:44 AM
You can cut the pie up in many pieces and go crazy doing so. To me, a native of CA of many generations, the simple answer is;

The population + ignorant politicians = the state of our State.

With the rise in population comes all the grief that humans bring in mass. To control, or try to control these negative realties politicians make laws, more and more laws. I do not give the politicians credit for being all that bright and their lack of gun knowledge is why our firearms laws make little to no sense. In the mistaken belief that firearm laws reduce criminal firearm crimes, the politicians keep making more firearm laws that in fact are not controlling crime. They are punishing us, the law abiding citizen who enjoys firearms for numerous reasons, none of them being illegal reasons. I do not think the politicians are as crafty as they are ignorant.

If not for Calguns and other organizations alike, we would be in much deeper distress over firearms laws than we are at this point.

The population + ignorant politicians = the state of our State.

randomBytes
01-31-2012, 12:09 PM
Australia had Port Arthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29) in 1996.

Which could have been prevented, if the operator of a gas (petrol ;-)
station had been able to get his .22 rifle into play fast enough.
But it had to be kept locked & unloaded so was useless, until the perp had
gone on to port arthur. I think that was brought up during the enquiry.

ja308
02-01-2012, 8:16 AM
Regarding Port Arthur in 1996 --" this lab rat" did what his programing told him too.

The govt's response was guarenteed this could happen again. But it hasn't .

Now we know heavy commercial airplanes killed several thousand in one instance .
Should a proper response by govt ,to have been to ban all planes over a certain weight limit?

lhecker51
02-01-2012, 9:29 AM
California is a utopia and therefore guns or weapons of any kind are not needed. Just ask my talking pet unicorn if you don't believe it!

lhecker51
02-01-2012, 9:39 AM
Now we know heavy commercial airplanes killed several thousand in one instance .
Should a proper response by govt ,to have been to ban all planes over a certain weight limit?

I think you are on to something here! I miss the old days when you had to take an ocean liner to cross the water! But they can sink! Guess everyone should stay on their own continent for their own safety.

These policies have worked quite well in other countries. The UN "peace keepers" disarm the local population and the problem goes away. Well, id did go away for a week, then the rebels attacked the now defenseless.

You never hear of the utter failures of UN peace keeping and their forced disarmament programs.